Mike Pence: “It’s The Greatest Honor Of My Life” Being “Shoulder to Shoulder” With An Admitted Sexual Predator

At this point in this long and ugly campaign, what else can be said? If you watched that debate last night (not to mention the circus leading up to it) and believe Donald Trump is qualified in any way to be president of the United States, then, like Trump, there is something wrong with you that a stadium full of psychiatrists, or a coliseum full of priests, can’t fix. The man is a creep. A lie-stained lunatic. A dangerous authoritarian who would, as he openly stated last night, use his presidential power to jail his political enemies—and only Allah knows what else he would do.

Since there is almost nothing else left to say about Trump’s lack of character and his lack of class and his lack of competence, I do want to say something about his running mate, the Jesus-loving, God-fearing, family values-honoring, Mike Pence. This morning I heard Mr. Pence say, as he does all the time, that being Trump’s running mate is “the greatest honor of my life” and that he is proudly standing “shoulder to shoulder” with Trump, with the same Trump who, behind closed doors, admitted that sexually assaulting women—with impunity—is one of the benefits of being a “star.” And pence on cnn.jpgjust why did Pence say he still wants to shoulder-kiss a man who believes fame entitles him to freely fondle the genitals of, say, Mike Pence’s daughters? Because, as the born-again VP candidate told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota, Trump “said last night very clearly that that was talk, not actions. And I believe him.”

Let’s think about that for a minute. Pence said that he believes Trump when Trump finally denied—after trying to dodge the question from Anderson Cooper three times last night—he has kissed and fondled women without their permission. Let it sink in just how that must sound to children around the country. A presidential candidate actually has to tell us that when he bragged about being a sexual predator, he was essentially just having a good time with the boys on the bus and he didn’t really mean it. And his running mate actually has to tell us that it is okay with him that Trump lied about being a sexual predator because he was merely talking about being a sexual predator and not acting on the talk. It really is breathtaking.

Here’s an excerpt from Trump’s infamous bus conversation:

TRUMP: I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

BILLY BUSH: Whatever you want.

TRUMP: Grab them by the p***y. You can do anything.

Trump, according to Pence, was simply kiddin’ around when he said he was “automatically” prone to “just start kissing” women he found “beautiful.” That was “talk, not actions” said Pence. But what kind of man would pretend, while working on a TV show that highlights beautiful women, that he cannot control himself around them? What kind of man would lie to others about his inability to prevent himself from sexually assaulting women? Is that the kind of man that a born-again Pence wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with? Would he want his two daughters, or his wife, to stand shoulder to shoulder with Trump? Or does Pence believe that the women in his life are not attractive enough to trigger an “automatic” response from the Orange Groper?

We all have asked, when trying to comprehend Trump, what kind of a creep is this? But now, as we try to understand how Pence—who claims the moral high ground with every Christian breath—can proudly embrace Trump, it is time to ask, what kind of creep is Mike Pence?



  1. You’ve said it well, as usual, Duane. It made me think of this bible verse, one which the pious and hypocritical Mr. Pence most certainly knows well:

    But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. — Matthew 5:28


  2. ansonburlingame

     /  October 11, 2016

    Which is exactly the same verse Jimmy Carter referred to when he said he was an adulterer after reading a Penthouse article!! Remember that one? As for womanizing, go read “The Dark Side of Camelot”, a book about JKF’s shenaigans over decades, including three years actually in the White House. The book was written by a noted and respected NYT columnist incidentally, not some Brietbart ranter of long ago. It is an overlooked fact that Jacky had left his ass just before the Cuban Crisis and moved to some home in VA!!

    Show me any baby boomer male that never patted some female ass over a lifetime. Today “we” would all be shot for some of the things we did or at least thought about doing in a different age. Today that would be called “sexual assault” or even “grabbing female genitals”!!

    I will give Hillary credit for probably never “lusting after a man”. She only has lusted after political power all her life and that is politically acceptable, today, at least for liberals. But we all know she as well has demonized some women, along with half of Trump’s supporters in attempting to gain ultimate political power in America at least. Lust is lust and every human being has experienced and most have acted upon it to some degree along with the other six “deadly sins”

    No, Trump’s words are not acceptable today, but forgivable in one case, well maybe. But in the aggregate, no way. And yes, Pence is a moralizing SOB, but so was/is Carter along with many liberals eager to impose “Christian” values on opponents when they themselves have “grabbed some ass” over a lifetime!!

    Now can we better argue over what to do when Hillary tries to raise taxes, what to do with the extra funds?? I promise not to provide Biblical verses to backup my views on that matter.



    • Anson,

      I only want to reiterate what I wrote to you earlier. This isn’t just about Trump’s words. This is about what he said he did to women without having to have their permission. That’s called sexual assault. If you want to put Jimmy Carter’s lust comments in the same class, then you couldn’t be more wrong. Try telling a judge, if you were on trial for sexual assault, that Jimmy Carter lusting in his heart is the same as you physically putting your hands on a woman’s private parts. I don’t think your lawyer would put up such a defense. And neither should you. Carter’s “sin” was between him and God. Trump’s admitted criminal behavior is between him and the law (since he has pending cases on the matter and has, I believe, settle at least one in the past.)



  3. ansonburlingame

     /  October 11, 2016

    Sorry but I am on a roll right now. Just just saw a Trump tweet calling John McCain a “foul mouthed …..” while asking for support in a past primary campaign. Would anyone like to deny that McCain probably cussed, a lot, in the past. Hell he destroyed 7 naval aircraft while piloting same with only one such incident in combat!! Had Hillary been a naval aviator one can only imagine …….???



  4. ansonburlingame

     /  October 13, 2016


    We are now getting to the crux of the issue over Trump’s remarks, and maybe (but not yet) some “video” to confirm his actions. What exactly is sexual assault today as opposed to yesterday. It is not at all inconceivable that today a “pat on the ass” could be deemed sexual assault. Should it be so, as opposed to a more frontal approach in the genital area.

    I continue to be confounded by the accusations that “25%” of women in the military experience sexual assault today (no figures yet announced as to the same in a civilian workplace). I seriously doubt that 25% of military women have been raped each year but “other stuff”, well who really knows. Where should the line be drawn today as opposed to what happened years ago in the same environment (lots of booze, lots of stress, etc.)

    Remember just a few years ago the controversy over a dance called “the grind” observed during high school proms. My now college graduated grand daughter was part of that “crowd” though I have no idea if she actually “did it”. Pretty raunchy stuff, but sexual assault? My point is if “he did it to her” it might well be a legal violation today. But what if “she did it to him”? Or more likely, what if they both did it to each other, called mutual consent I suppose, at the high school level.

    I certainly never raped any woman, nor did I ever grab them by the ……. But I did attend some pre-patrol parties (or post-patrol ones) that were raunchy as all hell. Watch “Das Boot”, the German U-Boat film to see what I mean. Probably the most accurate “war movie” I have ever seen. While I never attended one I can well imagine what went on during many Tailhook conventions as well. I would go so far as to suggest that any naval aviator achieving flag rank (making admiral) attended one or two of such before he became an admiral in those days. No, rape was not involved but ……..

    Today in the Navy one DUI and your career is gone, out the window, period. In my day I have seen “official vehicles” driven by high ranking officers themselves literally totaled on some dark night on a lonely, remote island in the Pacific (like Guam) with nary a blemish on their records. No, I did not do that, but ……. And I sure as hell could have done the same!!

    I am not proud of the fact that I drove, drunk, in times past. But I would reject the accusation that today I am a moral degenerate, unfit for any form of public service. And nope, I never pulled a “Teddy Kennedy” and then actually got strong support to run for President of the United States. Times and standards change. How people adapt to change is the important standard not how they acted in the past to a different set of unwritten standards of behavior, at least in my view.

    I made up my own mind months ago not to support Trump as you well know. He would have been a “jerk” even back in my days in the raunchy environment of submarining. If Teddy Kennedy was alive and running for President today, I suspect you would still support him even with Chappaquidoc (spl??) on his record, maybe. You certainly would support his politics.

    Hell Duane, if Bill Clinton was running today I would more than likely support HIM and would shrug off all the accusations about his past sexual behavior. I would also support Jack Kennedy today despite what I now “know” from reading the previously referenced book.

    Let me put it this way. Past private words and actions that do not rise to legal convictions of criminal behavior at the time such words or actions took place, hold little sway with my decisions who to support or not support. Sure that is a general statement and I am sure your could give me examples where I would change my mind. My point is I am much more concerned about what someone will do as President, not who they may have “goosed” in the past.



    • Anson,

      I disagree with your assessment of what is important in these charges against Donald Trump (I don’t want to re-litigate JFK or Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy; they aren’t on the ballot). Sure, I am concerned about “what someone will do as President” perhaps more than you are, since I tend to obsess over such things by nature. But when you reduce down what Trump is accused of doing by describing it merely as a goosing, I have a big problem with that.

      First, let’s stipulate to a few things: the statutory definition of sexual assault varies between jurisdictions and since neither of us are lawyers, we should keep this discussion tied to what we think are common-sense notions of what constitutes sexual assault, as opposed to what the law might say here or there.

      The first thing to understand about this subject is that any alleged behavior has to be uninvited. We are talking about non-consensual activity. And in that context of course there are varying degrees of seriousness. Rape is obviously much more violent and devastating than a pat on the butt. But the point here is that men (let’s just discuss it in turns of men offending women for now) in too many cases believe they have some entitlement to invade a woman’s space, to touch her inappropriately or to engage in inappropriate sexual talk with her, etc. We have to ask ourselves, why is that? What is it, or what has it been, in our culture that makes so many men feel like they have permission to be so aggressive against women? Again, we aren’t talking about objectifying women with our eyes, lusting after them in our hearts. We are talking about entering their space, sometimes putting hands on them or, in Trump’s case, putting hands on them and kissing them. Where did Trumpish men get the idea that women are theirs to do with as they please?

      You put your finger on part of the problem: our culture has been sending mixed messages on the matter. I don’t disagree with that at all. We have, in the past, sent signals that a certain level of aggression against women is okay, is acceptable. But times have changed, as you suggest. What may have been tolerated in the last generation is off-limits today. And that is as it should be. Women should be able to walk through this world without worrying about being groped by Donald Trump. It’s that simple. Natural male aggression, if you want to use that as an excuse for such behavior, has to be tamed. The only way to tame such aggression is through social norms, particularly our laws and mores. We mostly have the right laws on the books, but we need to work on our mores. It has to become absolutely morally and ethically wrong to not only do what Donald Trump said he did, but also to defend what he did. That is important to me, as I look out at all the “family values” Republicans running to his defense. It is sickening and the sooner we demonstrate, through our social disapproval, including ostracization if necessary, the better for women.

      And that’s why I think you are dismissing this too casually. It is a decent civilization we are talking about. It is damned important to women. It should also be damned important to men.



%d bloggers like this: